Page: 1 of 5
KATHERINE FERNANDEZ-RUNDELL,
Miami-Dade County State Attorney,
DAVA TUNIS,
Miami-Dade County 11th Circuit Court Judge,
COLLEEN KAY,
Assistant State Attorney For Miami-Dade County,
J. SCOTT DUNN,
Assistant State Attorney For Miami-Dade County,
WARDEN, FLORIDA STATE PRISON, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(March 18, 2013)
Case: 12-12938
Page: 2 of 5
Case: 12-12938
Page: 3 of 5
Case: 12-12938
Page: 4 of 5
did not disturb our decision in Bank with respect to a pro se litigants right to
amend. See Wagner, 314 F.3d at 542 n.1.
Upon review of the record and upon consideration of the parties briefs, we
conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing Edwardss complaint.
The district court rendered final judgment, and therefore, Edwardss appeal
is properly taken from the final judgment, not the preliminary injunction. Burton,
953 F.2d at 1272 n.9. Because Edwards challenges the fact that he is being held in
the custody of the Florida State Prison system, on the basis of the underlying
judgment, his claim must be raised in a 2254 habeas petition, not a 1983
complaint. See Hutcherson, 468 F.3d at 754. If a court were to conclude that
Edwardss commitment to the Florida State Prison system based on his conviction
was unconstitutional, this would necessarily imply that his conviction was invalid. 1
See id. Therefore, the district court did not err in dismissing Edwardss 1983
complaint. Furthermore, the district court properly declined to grant Edwards
leave to amend his complaint because even a more carefully drafted complaint
could not state a claim under 1983. See Bank, 928 F.2d at 1112.
Based on these considerations, we affirm.
Even if we were to accept that Edwardss 1983 claim is based on the place of
his confinement, Edwardss claim would still fail to state a claim for relief. The Supreme Court
has held that the Constitution itself does not give rise to a liberty interest in avoiding transfer to
more adverse conditions of confinement. Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005) (citing
Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225 (1976)); see also Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 248
(1983).
4
Case: 12-12938
AFFIRMED.
Page: 5 of 5